Wolverine vs Kodak Reels Capture Quality Black And White Film 

This is extremely helpful, this gave me everything I needed to get ready for upgrading from my telecine/multiplexor setup

Thanks for your helpful comparison video of these two units. I have used the Wolverine scanner for a few years now. and know it very well. I read a lot of owner comments of the Wolverine complaining about jitter and flicker when transfering their films. They assume that the fault is with the machine itself. This is not my experience. More often than not the issue lies with the brand of SD card being used. Cheap unbranded SD cards are the culprit. I have found that Lexar or Sandisk cards produce rock solid transfers using the Wolverine or similar type scanners (they are all made in the same factory anyway...just branded under a plethora of different names e.g. Relecta,Winait etc). I hope this is helpful information to veiwers of your channel.

I personally would go with the Kodak, mostly for editing leverage. crushed blacked are a pain to work with because detail is gone.

This video is very informative, thanks. I've been using the Wolverine Pro for several years. I'm sure I've digitalized a good 2,000 feet of 8 and Super 8 film. My experience was I got a lot of noise in every scan. I used an old version of PowerDirector to partially remove the noise and correct the speed. Had it not been for noise removal software I would have returned the Wolverine. I'd love to see an improved low cost film digitizer and I'm sure I'm not alone. However, this probably isn't possible in an affordable price range.

Professional and well executed comparison testing.

Thanks for the nice videos. I have the Wolverine and have noticed some pronounced frame jitter when digitising super 8 colour film. It seems to be due to variation in the placement of the frames during scanning. Have you noticed this and does the Kodak Reels do any better in this respect?

I'm a subscriber to your channel and really appreciate your videos. One thing: it's Final Cut Pro TEN (Roman Numeral "X"), not Final Cut Pro "Ex." Just letting you know as a friend! Thanks again and please keep up the good work!

I am really appreciative of your videos very informative. Just a question and beyond my technical ability but do you think the sensor in the converter COULD be upgraded and still potentially work. I’ve thought about this for a while as these converters have remained the same for the past several years

pretty useful. Thanks

Hi, nice and educational video. I got the Kodak Reels my selves and is happy with it. I have not noticed the digital artifacts myself but as you show they are there. I think it's a soft ware, or a combination of soft ware and slow computation hard ware problem. The Kodak sensor is huge and need to compress the sensor data a lot. The Wolverine sensor is more the same pixel size that the output file and do not need the same compression. It would be interesting to see a still frame, scanned by a neutral camera, of the Abbott and Castello movie. I think the sepia colors is more accurate than the black on the Wolverine?

I saw a video showing to NOT zoom with the Wolverine and do the crop later in post editing. This makes a huge difference. The video with the digital zoom of the converter is riddled with compression artifacts. The video with no zoom is virtually artifact free.

The main problem with these kind of units is compression noise. Not much use having more pixels if the compression noise is similar or greater... Unless of course if the compression can be omitted with the Kodak unit, wich would solve the issue (of course generating very large files, but at least you can process non compressed files then compress them at will). So, does the Kodak unit offer to select non compressed files ?

Wolverine can only use max 32GB SD card while Kodak can use 128GB SD card, huge diff in storage flexibility. Although Kodak will likely also NEED more space by virtue of its higher resolution scanning per frame. Kodak also has wider spectrum of reel sizes up to 9" while Wolverine limit to 5" unless you use their PRO version then 7".

If they could both just get that nasty compression issue fixed.

Though the movie is fun, to really compare, it would be better to show a still image from both, and zoom in on it. And I presume both of them have exposure controls.

The way I see it, the Kodak has the higher resolution, which results in it picking up more of the original film grain, which in turn has the identical bitrate of the compression codec struggle more, resulting in more artifacts. If one was to conservatively de-noise the footage prior to compression, it would be more obvious that the Kodak scans it at a higher resolution. You can also see the Kodak is more consistent on the contrast, whereas the Wolverine has more of a flicker issue when auto-compensating for image content.

After struggling with these cheap scanners, i ended sending my films to professional scanning for a fraction of the cost to a small company gamafix, they scanned 8mm film, super8 film at 4K no problem, retouched the film etc. Output was whatewer i eanted including tiff files lossless

I only found it scans at 30 fps which I found to be a bit fast later I slowed it down to to make it a bit more natural

I think reel size limitations was a difference, with the Wolverine having smaller reels. Unless that was the pro version. Not sure.

I'm watching this on a tablet but I really think the Kodak shows more details than the Wolverine.

Looked like the Kodak had more detail in darks.

Saya . Minta Proyektor nya yang ngga ke pakai tq...

I'm not trying to be mean. But there are registration issues with these scanners. Also, they can have a tendency to scratch film. If you have any sprocket issues, it will not scan properly. And the list goes on and on. You get what you pay for. 90% of people that need their family films transferred. You can get them done professionally for about the same price as buying these 2 plastic film scanners.

A tv that can read and display a scan disc

my wolverine broke after about 5 or 6 reels or so and is now unusable. As soon as you push record, it moves just a titch and then turns into a brick. Construction is likely very marginal.